FW: please comment on DOE proposal to kill NEPA re "advanced reactors"
Ellen Thomas
From this map, Idaho (ofc), Utah, Texas, Kansas, and Tennesee would be involved.
sop...@nukewatch.org
The Trump administration exempts new nuclear reactors from environmental review
The Trump administration has created an exclusion for new experimental reactors being built at sites around the U.S. from a major environmental law. The law would have required them to disclose how their construction and operation might harm the environment, and it also typically required a written, public assessment of the possible consequences of a nuclear accident.
The exclusion announcement comes just days after NPR revealed that officials at the Department of Energy had secretly rewritten environmental, safety and security rules to make it easier for the reactors to be built.
The Department of Energy announced the change Monday in a notice in the Federal Register. It said the department would begin excluding advanced nuclear reactors from major requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The act calls on federal agencies to consider the environment when undertaking new projects and programs.
The law also requires extensive reporting on how proposed programs might impact local ecosystems. That documentation, known as an environmental impact statement, and a second lesser type of analysis, known as an environmental assessment, provide an opportunity for the public to review and comment on potential projects in their community.
In its notice, the Energy Department cited the inherent safety of the advanced reactor designs as the reason they could be excluded from environmental reviews. "Advanced reactor projects in this category typically employ inherent safety features and passive safety systems," it said.
The exemption had been expected, according to Adam Stein, the director of nuclear energy innovation at the Breakthrough Institute, an environmental think tank that studies nuclear power and the tech sector. President Trump explicitly required it in an executive order on nuclear power he signed last May.
In a statement, the Department of Energy said that its reactors would still undergo environmental reviews.
"The U.S. Department of Energy is establishing the potential option to obtain a streamlined approach for advanced nuclear reactors as part of the environmental review performed under NEPA," it said. "The analysis on each reactor being considered will be informed by previously completed environmental reviews for similar advanced nuclear technologies."
Stein says he thinks the exclusion "is appropriate" for some reactors in the program, and agrees that previous reactors built by the Energy Department have not been found to have significant environmental impacts.
But critics of the possible exemption questioned whether the new reactors, whose designs differ from earlier ones, really are as safe as claimed.
Until now, the test reactor designs currently under construction have primarily existed on paper, according to Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit environmental advocacy group. He believes the lack of real world experience with the reactors means that they should be subject to more rigorous safety and environmental reviews before they're built.
"The fact is that any nuclear reactor, no matter how small, no matter how safe it looks on paper, is potentially subject to severe accidents," Lyman said.
Seeking swift approval
The move to exclude advanced reactors from environmental reviews comes amid a push to build multiple such reactors by the summer.
The Energy Department's Reactor Pilot Program is seeking to begin operations of at least three advanced test reactors by July 4 of this year. The program was initiated in response to the executive order signed by President Trump, which was designed to help jump-start the nuclear industry.
The reactors are being built by around 10 nuclear startups, which are being financed with billions in private capital, much of it from Silicon Valley. The goal, supporters say, is to develop new sources of electricity for power-hungry AI data centers.
Last week, NPR disclosed that officials at the Department of Energy's Idaho National Laboratory had extensively rewritten internal rules for the new test reactors. The new rules softened protections for groundwater and the environment. For example, rules that once said the environment "must" be protected, now say consideration "may be given to avoiding or minimizing, if practical, potential adverse impacts."
Experts were critical of the changes, which were shared with the companies but not disclosed to the public. The new rules constitute "very clearly a loosening that I would have wanted to see exposed to public discussion," Kathryn Huff, a professor of plasma and nuclear engineering at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign who served as head of the DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy from 2022 to 2024, told NPR after reviewing the documents.
In a statement to NPR, the Energy Department said the new rules continue "to protect the public and the environment from any undue risks."
"DOE follows applicable U.S. EPA requirements in these areas," it said.
Environmental review not needed
The decision to allow the reactors to avoid conducting environmental reviews means there will be less of an opportunity for the public to comment. But the environmental review process may not be an appropriate forum for such discussion anyway, Stein noted.
"I think that there's a need for public participation, particularly for public acceptance," he said. But he added, "the public just writing comments on an [environmental impact statement] that ultimately would get rejected doesn't help the public have a voice in any way that would shape any outcome."
The Energy Department said in its Federal Register notice and an accompanying written record of support that such reviews were unnecessary. The new reactors have "key attributes such as safety features, fuel type, and fission product inventory that limit adverse consequences from releases of radioactive or hazardous material from construction, operation, and decommissioning," according to the notice.
Lyman said he vehemently disagreed with that assessment.
"I think the DOE's attempts to cut corners on safety, security and environmental protections are posing a grave risk to public health, safety and our natural environment here in the United States," he said.
Clarification: The article has been updated to reflect the creation of a new exclusion category for the reactors. Individual reactor companies will still need to ask for the exclusion.
On 2026-02-02 12:39, 'Tom Clements' via Bananas wrote:
PLEASE send in a comment against DOE’s proposal to build “advanced
reactors” at DOE sites essentially without NEPA analysis! Can
anyone write a group letter?
Here's where to find the link to comment on the proposed pre-issuance
of a CX on advanced reactors (and affiliated facilities):
“Notice of New Categorical Exclusion for Advanced Nuclear Reactors
(February 2026)”
https://www.energy.gov/nepa/articles/notice-new-categorical-exclusion-advanced-nuclear-reactors-february-2026
Link to place to comment on Docket DOE-HQ-2025-0405 [1]:
"Open for Comment" on regulations.gov:
https://www.regulations.gov/docket/DOE-HQ-2025-0405/document - by Mar
4, 2026 at 11:59 PM EST
See DOE’s supporting document”: Written Record of Support for DOE
Categorical Exclusion for Advanced Nuclear Reactors -
https://www.regulations.gov/document/DOE-HQ-2025-0405-0001
Include this in your comment: Re “Department of Energy notice,
Docket number, DOE–HQ–2025–0405”
Not being a lawyer or NEPA expert and not having thought too closely
about this, I don't know what to recommend you to say but you can make
it very brief. Others please suggest what to say. Like:
o Go on record with opposition to the notice in its totality;
o Opposition to the CX being issued before a public comment period;
o Opposition to the assault o n NEPA itself;
o Opposition to bogus claims in the CX notice that “advanced
reactors” have been analyzed for environmental impacts and that no
EIS is needed for siting, construction or waste management;
o Opposition to construction of reactors, associated fuel-fabrication
facilities, spent fuel reprocessing facilities and waste management
facilities without legally mandated NEPA reviews, including public
comment periods and allowance for legal challenges;
o Opposition to the use of the CX as it’s an open door to
government-subsidized proliferation, via production of weapon-usable
plutonium in “advanced reactors,” the use of plutonium as a fuel
in such reactors and for removal of plutonium a separated material
from spent fuel;
o Statement that individuals and organizations (with standing?) near
proposed DOE sites - you and your group? - may well bring legal
interventions to stop the use of the proposed CX process and its
violation of NEPA and the Administrative Procedures Act.
???
Thanks,
Tom Clements
SRS Watch
Columbia, SC
www.srswatch.org [2]
On Monday, February 2, 2026 at 01:28:41 PM EST, Jay Coghlan
<j...@nukewatch.org> wrote:
Again, comment to DOE by March 2 is crucial for legal standing. Jay
On 2/2/26 10:20 AM, Tom Clements wrote:
Headline of that Reuters story can be seen on line:
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/energy-department-adds-advanced-nuclear-to-review-exclusions
I'm surprised that Oklo's scam stock is down in spite of this.
My first thought is not only about SMRs at DOE AI data centers like
SRS but also about the Oklo Powerhouse sodium-cooled reactors at DOE'S
INL and Portsmouth sites. And, roll in plutonium fuel fabrication
(from DOE's Pu stockpile) for the Oklo reactor and a reprocessing
(pyroprocessing) center to harvest Pu from spent fuel, and why not
throw in a CX on waste management. DOE Secretary Wright, former Oklo
board member, thinks he's being cunning but this further reveals that
he and his cronies think "advanced reactor" schemes are impossible
without every administrative and financial giveaway they can scrape
up.
I don't know the legal ramifications if the notice soon goes into
effect but does it mean that a legal threat or challenge is needed now
or can it wait until specific reactors and sites are proposed and the
issue of "standing" is clearer? In any event, that won't be on my
shoulders even if SRS is proposed for an SMR "energy center data and
reprocessing park."
Tom
On Monday, February 2, 2026 at 12:01:46 PM EST, Jay Coghlan
<j...@nukewatch.org> wrote:
Tom, you're as expert as any of us wannabee NEPA lawyers.
Yes, a plain reading indicates that DOE intends to categorically
exclude advanced reactors from NEPA review.
This all fits the pattern of the Trump Administration's simultaneous
assaults on NEPA and nuclear safety regulations.
I'm at the very beginning of trying to instigate 2 different NEPA
lawsuits. One over the need for a supplemental PEIS on NNSA's surplus
plutonium disposition program and another on the elimination of draft
EISs and related public hearings and opportunity for public comment.
I hope somebody could look into litigation over this. Concerning ANA I
think this would most likely involve the Idaho National Lab (i.e. the
Snake River Alliance).
Interesting that "DOE previously received public comments requesting
that DOE add a categorical exclusion for nuclear power reactors." Now
who would that have come from? The nuclear power industry?
For legal "standing" purposes it's very important that interested
organizations formally comment within the specified comment period
(i.e., not later than March 2).
Maybe somebody could organize a sign on letter for that purpose?
Jay
On 2/2/26 7:53 AM, 'Tom Clements' via Bananas wrote:
Somebody please help interpret this DOE notice published on Feb. 2,
2026. Does it allow for exemption from a public NEPA review for DOE
"advanced reactors" by simply declaring that a "categorical exclusion"
(CX, or CE) could apply to them? I think the notice states that a
categorical exclusion could simply be issued by DOE about a reactor's
potential environmental impacts in lieu of conducting a full, public
EIS review. Or not? This looks very ominous. What do lawyers and NEPA
experts amongst you think? Tom
Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 21 / Monday, February 2, 2026 /
Notices
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-02-02/pdf/2026-02071.pdf
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[DOE–HQ–2025–0405]
Categorical Exclusion for Advanced
Nuclear Reactors
AGENCY : Department of Energy.
ACTION : Notice of new categorical
exclusion and request for comment.
SUMMARY : The U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE or the Department) is
establishing a categorical exclusion for
authorization, siting, construction,
operation, reauthorization, and
decommissioning of advanced nuclear
reactors for inclusion in its National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
implementing procedures. DOE is
including the categorical exclusion in
the component of its NEPA
implementing procedures that it
maintains outside of the Code of Federal
Regulations. The new categorical
exclusion is based on the experience of
DOE and other Federal agencies, current
technologies, regulatory requirements,
and accepted industry practice.
DATES : This new categorical exclusion is
effective on February 2, 2026.
Comments on the new categorical
exclusion are due by March 4, 2026.
ADDRESSES : This notice and the written
record for this categorical exclusion are
available on the DOE NEPA website at
www.energy.gov/nepa [3]. Also, documents
relevant to this notice, including this
notice and the written record, are posted
on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
www.regulations.gov [4] (Docket: DOE–HQ–
2025–0405).
Submit comments, labeled ‘‘DOE
categorical exclusion for advanced
nuclear reactors,’’ using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal:
www.regulations.gov [4].
Instructions: All submissions must
include the agency name, ‘‘Department
of Energy,’’ and docket number, DOE–
HQ–2025–0405, for this notice. All
comments received will be posted
without change to www.regulations.gov [4],
including any personal information
provided. Do not submit any
information you consider to be private,
Confidential Business Information (CBI),
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read comments received, go to
www.regulations.gov [4].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : For
questions concerning this notice,
contact Ms. Carrie Abravanel, Acting
Director, Office of NEPA Policy and
Compliance, at ask...@hq.doe.gov or
(202) 586–4600.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Categorical Exclusion
III. Support
IV. DOE Solicits Comment
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Introduction
Executive Order (E.O.) 14301,
Reforming Nuclear Reactor Testing at
the Department of Energy (May 23,
2025), Section 6 Streamlining
Environmental Reviews, directs the
Secretary of Energy to create
‘‘categorical exclusions as appropriate
for reactors within certain parameters.’’
E.O. 14301 states, ‘‘[d]ecades of research
and engineering have produced
prototypes of advanced nuclear
technologies that incorporate passive
safety mechanisms, improve the
physical architecture of reactor designs,
increase reactor operational flexibility
and performance, and reduce risk in
fuel disposal. Advanced reactors—
including microreactors, small modular
reactors, and Generation IV and
Generation III+ reactors—have
revolutionary potential.’’
Further, E.O. 14299, Deploying
Advanced Nuclear Reactor
Technologies for National Security (May
23, 2025), directs the Secretaries of
Defense and Energy to consult with the
Chairman of the Council on
Environmental Quality regarding
‘‘applying the Department of Defense’s
and the Department of Energy’s
established categorical exclusions under
the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., for the
construction of advanced nuclear
reactor technologies on certain Federal
sites within the United States and for
any other appropriate measures for the
purposes of implementing this order’’
and ‘‘establishing new categorical
exclusions for the same purposes,’’
among other things. E.O. 14299 states
that ‘‘[a]dvanced nuclear reactors
include nuclear energy systems like
Generation III+ reactors, small modular
reactors, microreactors, and stationary
and mobile reactors that have the
potential to deliver resilient, secure, and
reliable power to critical defense
facilities and other mission capability
resources.’’
etc.
--
I. Categorical Exclusion
DOE is adding the following new
categorical exclusion to appendix B of
the DOE NEPA implementing
procedures, which is published outside
the Code of Federal Regulations and
available at www.energy.gov/nepa [3]:
B5.26 Advanced Nuclear Reactors
Authorization, siting, construction,
operation, reauthorization, and
decommissioning of advanced nuclear
reactors, provided DOE determines that:
(1) the project’s attributes, including
potential fission product inventory, fuel
type, reactor design, and operational
plans, reduce sufficiently the risk of
adverse offsite consequences from the
release of radioactive or hazardous
materials, and
(2) the project demonstrates that any
hazardous waste, radioactive waste, or
spent nuclear fuel generated by the
project can be managed in accordance
with applicable requirements.
---
Advanced reactor projects in this
category typically employ inherent
safety features and passive safety
systems, in addition to well-established
fuel, coolant, and structural materials
that support their associated DOE safety
design basis. Performance of these fuels,
systems, and materials is sufficient to
provide reasonable assurance of
adequate protection to the public,
workers, and environment. New reactor
designs and their associated fuels
ensure containment of radionuclides in
the event of an accident. Operational
periods for these projects will be
bounded by the potential fission
product inventory and will vary
depending on the design and fuel type.
Previously completed NEPA reviews
have established that advanced reactors,
including construction, operation, and
decommissioning, characterized by
technologies and materials (1) that have
been verified to prevent adverse offsite
consequences from release of
radioactive or hazardous materials and
(2) demonstrate that any hazardous
waste, radioactive waste, or spent
nuclear fuel generated by the project can
be managed in accordance with
applicable requirements do not
significantly affect the quality of the
human environment.
---
IV. DOE Solicits Comment _ [after it has already issued the CX, or CE!
- see footnote #4 below]_
As explained previously, DOE is
adding the new categorical exclusion for
advanced nuclear reactors to its NEPA
implementing procedures published
outside the Code of Federal Regulations.
DOE previously received public
comments requesting that DOE add a
categorical exclusion for nuclear power
reactors (e.g., 84 FR 34074). DOE has
elected voluntarily to solicit comments
on its new categorical exclusion for
advanced nuclear reactors. DOE is
soliciting comment on this new
categorical exclusion and the associated
written record, and may make revisions
to this categorical exclusion, if DOE’s
review of any comments submitted
suggests that further revisions are
warranted. Commenters have 30 days
from the date of publication of this
notice to submit comments.
footnote #4:
Before February 2025, the executive branch’s
historical practice was to receive public comments
before promulgating a categorical exclusion. This
practice was established by CEQ’s NEPA
implementing regulations.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Bananas" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to nuclearbanana...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/nuclearbananas/436359599.4088138.1770044039461%40mail.yahoo.com
[5].
--
Jay Coghlan, Executive Director
Nuclear Watch New Mexico
903 W. Alameda #325, Santa Fe, NM 87501
505.989.7342 c. 505.470.3154
j...@nukewatch.org
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Bananas" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to nuclearbanana...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/nuclearbananas/da7dd2af-4863-43be-92cf-627ffb0655ea%40nukewatch.org
[6].
--
Jay Coghlan, Executive Director
Nuclear Watch New Mexico
903 W. Alameda #325, Santa Fe, NM 87501
505.989.7342 c. 505.470.3154
j...@nukewatch.org
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Bananas" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to nuclearbanana...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/nuclearbananas/827984596.4179746.1770061151373%40mail.yahoo.com
[7].
Links:
------
[1] https://www.regulations.gov/docket/DOE-HQ-2025-0405/document
[2] http://www.srswatch.org
[3] http://www.energy.gov/nepa
[4] http://www.regulations.gov
[5] https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/nuclearbananas/436359599.4088138.1770044039461%40mail.yahoo.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
[6] https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/nuclearbananas/da7dd2af-4863-43be-92cf-627ffb0655ea%40nukewatch.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
[7] https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/nuclearbananas/827984596.4179746.1770061151373%40mail.yahoo.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
Ace Hoffman
Here is what my wife and I are sending in:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed regulation here: https://www.regulations.gov/document/DOE-HQ-2025-0405-0002
Post comments here: https://www.regulations.gov/commenton/DOE-HQ-2025-0405-0002
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The DOE proposes to apply a categorical exclusion to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for "advanced nuclear reactors". This proposed regulation should be rejected. It is a blatant attempt to further reduce environmental oversight of nuclear reactor designs, and to avoid the DOE's obligations to comply with existing regulations for environmental review.
To understand what this means, it's important to define the
terms.
- According to NEPA: "Categorical exclusions provide a mechanism
to identify types of Federal actions that normally do not have
significant environmental effects and for which neither an
environmental assessment nor environmental impact statement is
normally required." (source: https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2026-01/DOE-NEPA-Implementing-Procedures-2026-02-02.pdf)
- The proposed DOE regulation was written in response to Executive Order 14301 which defines advanced reactors as "... including microreactors, small modular reactors, and Generation IV and Generation III+ reactors ...".
It is clear that DOE is attempting to set a precedent for allowing future undefined experiments that endanger citizen's health and safety. New reactor designs would not even require DOE environmental review, and would proceed without giving the public an opportunity to comment or regulators an obligation to protect the public, the environment, or future generations.
The DOE justifies its abandonment of environmental review by
citing eight NEPA reviews of reactor projects since 2021. In some
of these examples, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or an
Environmental Assessment (EA) was completed, but no significant
environmental impacts were ever found. And somehow, the DOE wants
us to believe that this brief and selective history proves that
future nuclear reactor projects do not need environmental review!
There is not even any evidence that these prior decisions were
correct, they are simply anecdotal reports of the outcome of the
environmental review.
The DOE should also clarify whether all reactors falling under this regulation will be sited on U.S. federal property. The summary for the proposed regulation implies that it only applies to reactors on federal property, but there is no supporting detail. This is relevant, because there is already a plan for a DOE-sponsored experimental reactor in an industrial park in Parsons Kansas.
The Parsons project is being steamrolled without oversight, environmental review, or community comment. The company proposing the project has no proof that their idea will even work, and yet the administration is pushing for the reactor to be designed, built, installed (a mile underground!), fueled, and to have reached criticality by July of 2026!
If the proposed regulation to create a permanent NEPA categorical
exclusion for all DOE reactor projects is allowed, there will
effectively be no environmental review for any future reactor
design.
Sharon and Ace Hoffman Carlsbad, California USA
###
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NucNews" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to nucnews+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/nucnews/4fc24760-565d-4395-a246-1f08f0c5571e%40prop1.org.
-- ------------------------ Ace Hoffman Carlsbad, California USA -------------------------